I should preface this by saying that a) I personally am not a fan of superhero/Marvel movies and b) this is not a platform to vent my hipster butthurt-ness(?) about my "cool thing" now being accessible to the mainstream. Hoping to open a discussion and get the thoughts and opinions of other film nerds like myself on the topic.
So, lately I've noticed a phenomenon where a lot of creative indie filmmakers are jumping to the opposite side of the spectrum and signing on to direct huge major blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, this is a great thing for them personally and their career and I'm not faulting them for doing so, but for me I always get a little bummed out when one of my favourite directors takes on a Marvel movie or something. Not because the superhero scene isn't my thing, but more so because I'm of the opinion that these major blockbusters are more concerned with appealing to the masses to ensure their multi-million dollar film remains profitable, and thereby put a cap on the filmmakers creativity. I dunno if this has always been the case and I'm just noticing it now or not, but the amount of times I've seen this happen recently is very strange. Just my opinion though.
Anyways, let me know what you make of this whole thing, if I'm being selfish as a viewer or if it irks you as well when this happens. Below are a few examples. Love to know your opinion on this. List is random digs.

Why I love him: Hunt For The Wilderpeople (2016), What We Do In The Shadows (2014)

Film in question: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Taika Waititi makes some of the most fun and joyous films and I adore his style so much. That being said, I was admittedly bummed as tit to see him join the Marvel franchise for the latest Thor movie. Still haven't seen it though, maybe I'd actually dig it. Who knows.

Ava created a reputation of being a subversive and provocative voice for black culture through her works in film and collaborations with Oprah and Jay-Z/Beyonce. That in mind, I have no idea what to make of her latest movie watching the trailer...

Why I love him: for directing some of the finest episodes of Breaking Bad and absolutely killing it.

Film in question: Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Not really an indie director, but I'm including him anyways because he's become pretty much a household name after the release of The Last Jedi. His film work has been good, but what really caught my eye was his direction in Breaking Bad, leading the charge behind some of the series' most memorable moments (Fly, Fifty-One, and of course Ozymandias).

This is an interesting example I wanted to include of a director who started out making independent features, moved to a major studio film, and then made the change back to indie again with A Ghost Story.

Ayer admittedly had a pretty steady growth to exploding with Suicide Squad, but deserves to be mentioned because his potential shown with End of Watch in particular (Fury as well, to a degree) was unfortunately squandered so heavily once he had the major studio backing on said film.

Scott Derrickson (from The Exorcism of Emily Rose to The Day the Earth Stood Still; later from Sinister to Doctor Strange) - this is a little old at this point, but still one of the first of the indie-to-blockbuster kind

Harmony Korine (from all sorts of great shit to Spring Breakers - not really a blockbuster, but still)

I'd imagine Marvel/Disney exerts a lot of creative control. You can't exactly take a lot of risks when catering to the least common denominator. Also most superhero movies are reskinned versions of the last one, so you can't exactly expect much.

@macman, sure, I can understand that point. One of the reasons I wanted to mention David Lowery, since after his major studio debut he returned with the backing needed to make easily one of the most ambitious and out-there films in recent memory.

Maybe, director is the wrong term for filmmakers that make franchise films. We don’t have great information, but it seems like we should talk about filmmakers by the role they take in a set and the amount of power they exert.

Some films have actors exert more control on the final product than the director, some editors are probably really key, etc

I will say though that I thought Rian did a much better job than JJ at directing the new Star Wars. I felt that he brought what JJ was missing, which was some vision and creativity. The Force Awakens was well executed but completely boring and lacking in risks, whereas TLJ had a few mistakes and missteps but ultimately was more immersive and interesting for me.

@trophycase, I hear ya. I really appreciated that Rian took risks with the story, even if I didn't think the film was anything marvelous. It also makes me happy that he pissed off so many thin-skinned SW fanboys lol. Always a good laugh.

"Some films have actors exert more control on the final product than the director, some editors are probably really key, etc"

not really true, the director should have a hand over everything in the filmmaking process. if he doesn't, it's either because he's a lazy shit, or the studio fucked him over. some actors (looking at you Edward "The Douche" Norton) demand being there for the editing process, but they rarely have any say. the director really is the person who controls the process

ayer was never an indie director, just someone who was able to make a-list movies look more artisanal than what they actually were.. that being said, I absolutely loved Fury despite its banal everything..

It’s not always true that a director has 100% control, some films have more collaboration, some have filmmakers do their own editing and cinematography others don’t. Directors aren’t the only agents in a film.

@mac - there are a few Scorsese interviews and articles floating around, where he discusses in detail how difficult and vexing it is to navigate the hierarchy of production, and what parts of his best films were essentially propagated by people who weren't him against his general wishes..

Yeah, a lot the times the quality of a movie is a group effort anyway. Like Donnie Darko turning out wayy different than the Richard Kelly initially intended, but probably for the better, regarding his director's cut (meh) and how his career went after that one as his debut.

That said, outside of America, directors often have a lot more to say. Park Chan-wook once said (after directing Stoker) that in South Korea film-making works like a monarchy with the director as the king while in America he experienced it more as a democracy where other people actually had to agree with what he planned before he could go though with it.

i'll take a poke around.. I'm pretty sure I have one of them in an actual magazine.. googling it should do you though, dude.. he's been very outspoken about walking young directors through the process of actually making a movie with big studios (how long it took him to make Silence etc.)..

if doing a blockbuster gives them the funds and freedom to direct passion projects/indie flicks its all good with me..

Steven Soderbergh may not be doing Marvel flicks but he has the talent to direct mainstream flicks like the Ocean trilogy and Erin Brockovich to flicks like The Limey, Che, and The Girlfriend Experience.. Even some in between stuff like Side Effects, Logan Lucky, and Magic Mike.

an anecdote: when i was in Raukokere earlier this year -- a small, barely settled area, pop. under 100 -- i visited the Anglican church there. on the wall was a picture drawn by Taika Waititi when he was in primary school, and the reverend of the time had scrawled on the bottom of it: "God protect this talented child". Looks like He did.